At that time the bhikkhus conferred the pabbajjà ordination on a person whose hands were cut off, on a person whose feet were cut off, whose hands and feet were cut off, whose ears were cut off, whose nose was cut off, whose ears and nose were cut off, whose fingers were cut off, whose [\q 225/] thumbs were cut off, whose tendons (of the feet) were cut, who had hands like a snake's hood (176), who was a hump-back, or a dwarf, or a person that had a goitre, that had been branded, that had been scourged, on a proclaimed robber, on a person that had elephantiasis, that was afflicted with bad illness, that gave offence (by any deformity) to those who saw him, on a one-eyed person, on a person with a crooked limb, on a lame person, on a person that was paralysed on one side, on a cripple (177), on a person weak from age, on a blind man, on a dumb man, on a deaf man, on a blind and dumb man, on a blind and deaf man, on a deaf and dumb man, on a blind, deaf and dumb man.

I can understand why someone crippled or disabled might be forbidden from entering the order, but to disqualify one "who gives offense to those who see him" (especially given Buddhaghosa's commentary on the word parisadúsaka) is a disappointment to me.

I'm severly limited in my ability to decipher Commentarial Pali, but it appears that Buddhaghosa extends the meaning of parisadúsaka to those whose skin is too dark or too light. Just the sentiment in general is a little disappointing.

The Sri Lankans are sometimes criticized for introducing caste into their ordination procedure, but perhaps they are carrying on the spirit of the discipline more than some of us are aware of.

Any help in translating Buddhaghosa's commentary would be appreciated.

I can't help you with Buddhaghosa's commentary... but I wouldn't be surprised. Saṃsāra is saṃsāra. It's a really big mess, no matter how much Vinaya rules the Buddha would've put on the monks, or taken away, and whether you're ordinated or not.

For example, if an "hearing" monk turns out to be unable to communicate with a deaf person, even though this deaf person knows sign language, and is even eloquent in it... that monk would actually be the "deaf and dumb" one... from that deaf person's perspective.

If the Saṅgha was located in a large deaf community, where sign language was predominant, someone would've commited a dukkaṭa offense in ordinating this person. Hope that this clears up what I think the actual purpose of these Vinaya rules were.

The following was what the venerable Yunmen had to say about it: (He's zen I know... but still pretty relevant):

A monk asked his teacher Yunmen, "There are three kinds of sick people in the world... the blind, deaf, and mute. How am I to teach them Buddhism?"

"Since you have come to ask for instruction,” Yunmen said, “Why don’t you bow before me?"

The monk bowed before him, and then the moment he lifted his head... Yunmen took a swipe at him. The monk jumped back, surprised.

In light of the achievements of the Ven. Bhaddiya, and the praise he received in the suttas, it's odd that such a rule would be laid down.

Thus have I heard. At one time the Blessed One was dwelling near Sàvatthi, in Jeta's Wood, at Anàthapindika's monastery.

Then Venerable Bhaddiya the Dwarf, following behind many monks, approached the Blessed One.

The Blessed One saw Venerable Bhaddiya the Dwarf approaching from a distance, ugly, unsightly, and deformed, following the monks who for the most part ignored him.

Having seen (that), he addressed the monks, (saying): "Do you see, monks, that monk coming from afar, following behind many monks, ugly, unsightly, and deformed, ignored for the most part by the other monks?"

"Yes, Venerable Sir."

"That monk, monks, is one of great power and great majesty. There is no well-gained attainment which has not been already attained by that monk, (including) that good for which sons of good family rightly go forth from home into homelessness, that unsurpassed culmination to the spiritual life, in which he dwells having known, directly experienced, and attained for himself in this very life."

Then the Blessed One, having understood the significance of it, on that occasion uttered this exalted utterance:

"With faultless wheel, with a white covering, the one-spoked chariot rolls on,See the untroubled one coming, who has cut off the stream, who is unbound."

Whenever questioning something from the Vinaya, it is really probably best to find (if it is possible) the origin story for such a rule. You have to remember that the Buddha laid down these rules one by one, almost always in response to some particular fiasco. A good source is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's "The Buddhist Monastic Code:

I don't have time to sort through at the moment, but see if that helps.

Another point to consider is that some people are simply not "cut out" for ordination, since it is a very difficult and restrictive life. There might be certain conditions in a persons life that just make it impossible, or at least very difficult, to ordain. One who is able to ordain is actually very fortunate to be able to do so.

pulga wrote:In light of the achievements of the Ven. Bhaddiya, and the praise he received in the suttas, it's odd that such a rule would be laid down.

I think he was ordinated very early on, when the Saṅgha was still small. It was only when there started to be a large number of bhikkhus ordinated, that the Buddha started to add the Vinaya rules. Of course, everyone knows what happens when a large number of people are put together in a group.

It might be more useful to look at the word "dukkaṭa," the so-called "offense" that this is put under. (As opposed to thullaccaya; thulla = massive, fat, gross; caya = mass, piling, heap.) It seems like dukkaṭa is usually translated as "wrong-doing," or even "evil-doing," but I think it's really more like "badly done," or even closer, "an action that is difficult, or stressful." It comes from the same root as dukkha.

Is it really accurate to view the dukkha as "wrong" or "evil"? Or is it really more like "stress"? I don't know if this interpretation still holds with dukkaṭa as it is used in the Vinaya... because I'm not really an expert. As you can see... the Buddha made these rules, because the bhikkhus (non-arahant) couldn't handle it, apparently.

Be it far from me to try dilute the rules, though... they're not my rules.

I think you make a very good point. In recounting his experience with Ajahn Sumedho, Paul Breiter wrote:

'One time when he read the Vinaya to us, he explained that the rules weren’t absolute principles that incurred punishment if violated. “It’s not like God is watching over your shoulder, and if you pee standing up, He calls out, ‘Abat dukkot! (dukkhata apatti, a minor infraction),’” and he had a good laugh at his own joke.'